❓ WA Attorney General responds to parliamentary question regarding court statistics and resource allocation, providing data for March 2007 and outlining future reporting improvements. The AG expresses concern about the resource intensity of broad parliamentary questions.
AnsweredQoN 2273Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 June 2007
Response time
34 days
Simply put, the Member has asked three questions seeking the same information for three different months - February, March and April 2007. The only difference between QON 1921 (February data) and 2187 (April data) and QON 2273 (March data) is sub part 13 in PQ 2273 which requests information relating to confiscation of assets laws which is not reproduced in the other two QONs. Section 7 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994, which was introduced by the Court Government in 1994, sets out the general principles of public administration and management to be observed in relation to the Public Sector. At subsection 7(f) it states: "resources are to be deployed so as to ensure their most efficient and effective use". I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
The only difference between QON 1921 (February data) and 2187 (April data) and QON 2273 (March data) is sub part 13 in PQ 2273 which requests information relating to confiscation of assets laws which is not reproduced in the other two QONs. Section 7 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994, which was introduced by the Court Government in 1994, sets out the general principles of public administration and management to be observed in relation to the Public Sector. At subsection 7(f) it states: "resources are to be deployed so as to ensure their most efficient and effective use". I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Section 7 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994, which was introduced by the Court Government in 1994, sets out the general principles of public administration and management to be observed in relation to the Public Sector. At subsection 7(f) it states: "resources are to be deployed so as to ensure their most efficient and effective use". I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
At subsection 7(f) it states: "resources are to be deployed so as to ensure their most efficient and effective use". I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
*This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
The only difference between QON 1921 (February data) and 2187 (April data) and QON 2273 (March data) is sub part 13 in PQ 2273 which requests information relating to confiscation of assets laws which is not reproduced in the other two QONs. Section 7 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994, which was introduced by the Court Government in 1994, sets out the general principles of public administration and management to be observed in relation to the Public Sector. At subsection 7(f) it states: "resources are to be deployed so as to ensure their most efficient and effective use". I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Section 7 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994, which was introduced by the Court Government in 1994, sets out the general principles of public administration and management to be observed in relation to the Public Sector. At subsection 7(f) it states: "resources are to be deployed so as to ensure their most efficient and effective use". I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
At subsection 7(f) it states: "resources are to be deployed so as to ensure their most efficient and effective use". I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
I have no desire to see the right of the Member restricted in asking parliamentary questions, and I understand that the role of the Opposition, to hold the Government accountable; however, resources within my agencies have to be managed prudently. In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
In light of the requirement to effectively manage public sector resources, it concerns me that in my departments and agencies, disproportionate resources have to be applied to answering parliamentary question of a corporate, operational or "catch all" nature. Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Notwithstanding the resource intensity of these questions, I have provided the information required for the months of February, March and April 2007. To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
To address the concerns regarding imprudent use of resources described above, and the need for accountability to Parliament, in future, key performance indicators which are presented in departmental annual reports, will be supplemented by more detailed quarterly courts statistical reports published via the department's website. (1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(1) (a) 947 (b) 1,918 (c) 2,935 (d) 20,898 (e) 3,158 (f) 10 (inquests only) (g) 1* (h) 41 (i) 624 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 * As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished on 7 May 2007, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(2) (a) 378 (b) 819 (c) 862 (d) 12,767 (e) 958 (f) 103 (comprising 5 inquests and 98 finalisations without inquest) (g) 1 (h) 115 (i) 519 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 450 (3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(3) (a) 2,956 (b) 4,455 (c) 2,582 (d) 42,160 (e) 2,391 (f) 29 matters awaiting inquest (g) 2 (h) 90 (i) 78 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 1,646 (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(5) 77 (14.0%). (6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(6) 371 (5.0%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48.0% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in March 2007, compared to 3.5% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(8) 123. (9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(9) 164. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper __________] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(12) During the month of March the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $342,542.19, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
During the month of March the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $409,014.00. During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
During the month of March certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(13) During the month of March the estimated total value of property frozen was $1,208,586.00* *This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
*This figure represents the gross value of property frozen as opposed to the likely return to the State. It is assumed that "seized" means frozen as opposed to actually seized and taken into custody. The total value of property "seized" was $85,620.00. (14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(14) 10 applications were rejected: Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Six were refused under section 37 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an injury is from a motor vehicle in certain cases. Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock. One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
One application was refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences. One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
One application was refused under section 31 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, which relates to the maximum award payable for a single offence. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
(15) The actual FTEs at 31 March 2007 was 202.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.